The Washington Post published an article called "Plane Crash in Tehran Kills 115." You would think it'd be easy to cover a plane crash when terrorism was ruled out, but I was surprised to see framing in this article.

The article gave all the pertinent details that would be expected. When, what, where, how, who was effected, etc. However, then it said: U.S. trade sanctions against Iran have led to chronic shortages of aircraft spare parts. The Bush administration this year held out the possibility of lifting the sanction on airline parts as a bargaining chip in negotiations over the future of Iran's nuclear program.

While this is one perspective that deserves to be expressed (I guess), it doesn't say who else Iran trades with or what other aircraft traders they may buy from. To me, it seemed that this article pointed the blame towards the Bush Administration. I found this rediculous.

from the Washington post:

Democrats That Antiwar Remarks Could Backfire
Dec. 7

From my own observations, this article simply states a concieved problem within the political strategies of the Democratic Party regarding the war in Iraq. Most of the opinions come from competing perspectives from within the party, offering each bias, while also hilighting the Republican responses.

I feel that this article does well enough to diminish the idea of framing and shows a good example of objectivism. Any attempt to see this as framing is largely built on an idea that the Democrats have no leadership, but I think even the most diehard Democrats (myself included) will tell you that the party hasn't had leadership since 2000 anyway. It's not a frame so much as it's a fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR200512...

The washingtonpost.com article posted above discusses the likelihood of DeLay's return to power after the affirmation of one of his indictment charges. The article gives the views of Republicans that are for DeLay, Republicans that are against DeLay, and DeLay's aides. Prima facie, the article seems objective in the sense that it presents the facts of the process and sticks to what other representatives (officials concerned with the governmental dilemma) are saying. However, in the analysis we get some pieces of framing. Specifically, the article states:

"The likelihood of a showdown next month over DeLay's political future seemed to increase as House Republicans returned from a two-week break and assessed the damage from the mushrooming scandals."

The quote emphasizes that the political turmoil in which DeLay finds himself is like a series of scandals--mushrooming immorality that he can't get away from--and there is no reciprocally strong voice within the rest of the article that argues the opposing side (the illegitimacy of the charges). Thus, while presenting the situation in a seemingly objective manner, the article chooses to zero in on the likelihood that opposition to DeLay's return to the House will gain strength on the Hill.
Personally, my whole take on news articles is that some do a good job of striving to be objective with the facts and some don't--it's all a matter of which news source you read and what issue is being discussed. I don't think framing can be avoided because, as philosopher Paul Feyerabend would argue, the terms we use to describe occurences are all theory-laden (there is an implicit value judgement made). Journalists may be able to report a fact objectively as they see it, but when it comes to analysis (the kind of analysis that our journalistic culture requires--especially on extremely political issues like the DeLay situation) the best you can expect is a fair representation of multiple frames.

Thankyou slashdot...

Time Warner, Microsoft near ad deal: WSJ

Tue Dec 6,10:32 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Inc (NYSE:TWX - news) is closing in on a deal with Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) to team up on an online advertising service to compete with Google Inc (Nasdaq:GOOG - news), the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the talks.

The paper said the two companies were now focusing on a deal that would combine their advertising-related assets, with little or no money changing hands.

It said they expected to reach an agreement before the end of the year, but that it was still possible that Time Warner's America Online unit could strike a deal with competitor Google instead.

Time Warner has been holding talks with both Microsoft and Google over AOL, sources familiar with the situation have told Reuters and other media.

Sources familiar with the matter had said that Time Warner's initial discussions included the possible sale of a stake in the Internet unit, but recent media reports said that the two likely buyers may be backing away from such an investment in favor of smaller-scale partnerships with AOL.

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who has been critical of Time Warner's strategy, has also said that he would hold Time Warner board members personally responsible if they forged a deal for AOL that valued the Internet provider too cheaply.

The Journal said that, under negotiations between Time Warner and Microsoft, AOL would drop Google as its main Internet search provider and switch to Microsoft's MSN service.

Under their current agreement, Google derived about 11 percent of its first-half revenue from AOL, which also generates substantial revenue from the contract.

The Journal said Microsoft and Time Warner are also negotiating to create a joint advertising sales force to sell online ads across both the AOL unit and Microsoft's MSN. Both services would remain under the control of their current owners, according to the report.

People familiar with the talks told the newspaper that the companies expected to announce a deal by the third week of December. -

I don't feel this article is framed in favor of one side or the other. Basically it is restating a different paper's article and information in what i view is a fairly objective way. The different companies' interests are explained. The article does not exagerate one side or another. I think objectivity is an attainable idealand this article is a decent rep.

Offered for your reading pleasure:

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1

LENGTH: 972 words

HEADLINE: Rumors fan flames in hot battleover gay marriage amendment

BYLINE: Gardner Selby, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

BODY:

Advocates for a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage say they fear that foes plan to illegally bus in residents of other states to vote against the proposal.

"That (prospect) is the most ridiculous thing on the planet," said Glen Maxey, who directs No Nonsense in Texas, an Austin-based coalition working against Texas becoming the 17th state to put a same-sex marriage ban into its constitution.

Those who talk of busing in voters are "smoking crack," Maxey said, calling such recruitment immoral and illegal.

Amendment supporters have come up with no proof. Yet simply floating such a specter suggests that campaigns on Proposition 2 -- already pitting social conservatives against Texans who back gay rights -- could be subject to spells of high anxiety before the Nov. 8 election. In tussling otherwise fueled by Internet pleas, church sermons and voter-by-voter outreach, such vitriol could set a hard-edged tone for the next seven weeks.

Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Plano-based Free Market Foundation, said he's aired his concern to Secretary of State Roger Williams, the state's chief elections officer.

"If the election is small turnout, this could have a big impact," Shackelford said.

Williams said through a spokesman that the possibility of out-of-state residents registering "has been brought to our office's attention," and officials plan to watch for spikes in registration. The registration deadline is Oct. 11.

It "is a situation we can monitor and handle," spokesman Scott Haywood said.

Shackelford and state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who wrote the proposal last spring, each said they have heard talk that anti-amendment forces intend to bus in voters.

The allegation also surfaced last week in a one-page handout that Maxey said was passed out in downtown Austin and near the University of Texas. There is no indication of who printed or distributed it.

Chisum, who mentioned his concern to the 35-member Austin Area Pastor Council last month, said last week: "Maxey's going to do that; he's going to reach out to them and explain to them what they can do. All they have to do is get down here and register to vote. And I suspect they're going to furnish addresses for them. That wouldn't be hard to do. . . . (You could) stuff ballot boxes with people who are not legitimate Texans."

John Colyandro, an Austin consultant to the Texas Marriage Alliance, which urges approval of Proposition 2, called the concern "preposterous."

"I can't imagine that taking place at all," he said.

Maxey, a former Democratic House member from Austin, suggested the charge reflects vitriol headed his way.

"I know they're going to come after us with a fine-tooth comb and try to find whatever. They're going to find nothing on this campaign," he said.

Proponents mobilize

The busing allegation sparked combustion in a campaign otherwise premised, in all camps, on identifying like-minded voters and getting them to vote without costly radio and TV advertising or much leafleting by mail.

"This is not a money issue," said conservative consultant Allen Blakemore of Houston. "You don't have big business weighing in on this. So there's not a lot of money in either side. Therefore, there are very grass-roots-oriented campaigns."

Amendment supporters say sealing the ban in the constitution, in addition to a 2003 law forbidding same-sex marriage, will prevent judges from imitating others in Massachusetts and California who have recognized same-sex marriage. Opponents say the ban would unnecessarily reinforce the 2003 law and possibly restrict practices including common-law marriage -- a claim proponents dispute.

Proponents expect resounding approval of the measure, many wondering only what their margin of victory will be. Opponents are angling for a landmark upset.

Amendment supporters have launched a Web-based effort to shore up conservative groups and churches.

The marriage alliance, headed by three Republican legislators, touts video endorsements from GOP elected officials including Gov. Rick Perry. Shackelford launched the Texans FOR Marriage Political Action Committee last month. They also are counting on the Texas Restoration Project, a group supported by the governor seeking up to 300,000 voter registrations through churches focused on conservative values.

Opponents also act

Anti-amendment forces have gathered under the umbrella of No Nonsense in November, which is rooted in gay, social liberal and civil rights communities. Its Web site offers scripts for walking neighborhoods, giving speeches and advocating rejection of the amendment by telephone or in visits to bars, coffeehouses and outdoor events, where younger people congregate.

Maxey suggested both sides must weigh historically light turnout in constitutional elections; the state hopes for a turnout of more than 12 percent this year.

Both sides could lean on e-mail communication. Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, said she encourages pro-amendment activism in frequent messages sent to about 2,000 correspondents; she hopes each of them contacts another 100 people.

Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, said she encouraged her board to join the pro-amendment campaign partly because she's mother to four sons, ages 10 to 15. Wright said she fears any encouragement of gay marriage could lead to other changes such as legalized polygamy.

Outside a debate on the amendment at Austin Community College's Rio Grande campus last week, No Nonsense activists reported collecting voter registration applications from 25 individuals.

"It's about my life and who I get to marry," said Jessie Beal, president of the 20-member ACC Gay Straight Alliance. "It's about me believing in my government and my constitution. I should be protected by that."